Andreas Mohr <a...@lisas.de> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 01:53:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Michael J Gruber <g...@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
>> > After a bisect session, to clean up the bisection state and return to
>> > -the original HEAD, issue the following command:
>> > +the original HEAD (i.e., to finish bisect), issue the following command:
>> Makes sense.
> Doesn't ;)
> [aww, very sorry for this blunt reply]
> The main point of my mail was to stretch the (whether actually intended)
> *perceived* start <-> stop symmetry
Actually, in that sense, I do no think finish is exactly a good
wording. The majority of use case would be to finish up after you
found the sole culprit, so in that sense "finish" is not too bad,
but in general, when you "reset", there is not necessarily any
symmmetry with "start". We should definitely not be giving you an
illusion that there is one by using "stop" [*1*].
It is more like "abort".
I may be done with bisection after running the bisection to the very
end, of I may have realized that the problem is not bisectable due
to many reasons (e.g. the sympotom may be intermittent, or it has
already become apparent that there are more than one cause of the
observed breakage) way before we found "the first bad commit".
And "reset" cleans the bisectoin state and returns to the original
HEAD, regardless of the reason why you are cleaning up. If we were
to add any explanation to the sentence, I think "finish" makes a lot
more sense than "stop".
*1* another reason to avoid "stop" is that it could mean "I stop
here for now, to later come back and start digging again from
there", which is not "reset" is about at all.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html